Mister Mister

Sure, but I'm not talking hypotheticals. Whether or not they accept property rights in the abstract, do thieves in real life, attempt to protect their stolen property from theft by others?

Does the thief protect his stolen property? Or is he totally fine with being stolen from?

the Aristotelian mean applies to certain qualities that are beyond the scope of true/false, right/wrong in philosophy. It is more akin to aesthetics than ethics. For example, a particular song could be too fast or too slow to achieve the right effect, but there's no objective means to determine what is the perfect speed for every song. Similarly, Aristotle points out cowards who never get angry, and crazy people who get angry too easily, but there's no perfect way to say when you should get angry, how angry should you be, how to express it, and so on. That's my crude understanding of it, hope that makes sense.

No, you're not looking at the larger context. Allowing people of low IQ and incompatible culture is only a problem in a welfare state/democracy, when they are subsidized by the State and can vote against you. Furthermore, within a situation of freedom, there ARE natural, economic and social limits on immigration which are not present in modern Western welfare states. You have a very hostile way of talking about things which is very off-putting. It doesn't mean you're wrong, just annoying. I hope you will accept this criticism of your communication style in general.

Is she also teaching her daughter how to properly throw a punch? Seems to me dangerous to teach her to pick a fight with aggressive boys who are probably stronger. She may be consuming lots of media where a hot skinny chick takes out multiple well-trained men with fancy spinning kicks, but reality isn't like that.

You're looking at this outside of the context. Imagine a co-worker or customer constantly verbally bullied you at work. They would be fired or kicked out, OR you would quit. Children in school are already in a coercive situation, like inmates in prison. The fact that there is dysfunction in this environment is perfectly natural. I would add that, to address your larger point of situations in which it is difficult to apply the NAP -- YES there are grey areas in the NAP, like parenting, abortion, date-rape, pollution, or some property or contract disputes. This neither invalidates the NAP nor justifies the State, any more than grey areas in biology invalidate evolution or justify Creationism. You need the free market and common law to constantly negotiate these grey areas.

Obviously not abuse, but it's a clear exercise of female power. I have no problem with this in principle, except that we're not allowed to be honest about the sexual power that young women have over men. Can you imagine men doing this? It would never work, one after another would break like companies in a price-fixing cartel. I would add, that all this is doing is to prevent discussion. By threatening verbal abuse, accusations of racism, and now sexual ostracism against Trump supporters, you are just encouraging them to keep it secret, thereby maintaining the silent hostility between political disagreements in America.

The government lies about numbers, especially unemployment. The debt has risen astronomically in the last 8 years, and many of the dollars printed by the Fed have gone overseas. So the inflation and poverty have just been delayed and outsourced for the time being. See Stef's talks with Peter Schiff.

yes, fair enough. the point is that low IQ people can go along with something that takes a high IQ to fully understand. maybe a better example is that low IQ people can be very competent on smartphones designed and programmed by high IQ people.

I think maybe this comes from Aquinas or one of the other medieval theologians?

To some extent, yes. Most people, especially average IQ and lower, go with the herd. They are not going to oppose a society based on the UPB, just as they are not going to oppose modern statist society. I share your fear that it seems overwhelming and impossible, how we could go from the world today, to a stateless society, but don't think that you have to convince everyone rationally.

I was raised in a leftist world, and looking back on it, it was very similar to a religious upbringing, with teachers instead of priests. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about dissociative/fighter personality, though I would guess this has to do with your upbringing, for which I am sorry. When you say certain authors intimidate or discomfort you, can you give an example? I feel that way about Ann Coulter, though I'm currently making my way through Adios America. What do you mean about "hands off" kind of people? I've found that being raised in that world helps me to understand the mentality of this part of America, how it is transmitted, what are it's good points, and why it is so destructive. I think I am also more hostile to the Left than to the Right. In my opinion, the Right understands to a greater extent what the State is, but are overzealous in using it to punish who they see as the bad people, whether it be drug users or immigrants or countries overseas. The Left on the other hand, seem to have absolutely NO conception of what the state is, political philosophy in general, or the Western tradition of philosophy, reason, skepticism to authority, freedom of association, and so on. They are SO sure that they are on the right track, and that anyone who disagrees wants to go backwards, and that if everyone would just OBEY, they could make the world perfectly as they see it ought to be. I think the reason I have so much contempt for the Left, is partly unresolved anger towards my parents and my schooling, for wasting so much of my time, telling me lies, presuming to know what was best for me, and so on, but also that they act as if they are supreme intellectuals and compassionate, when in reality they are ignorant manipulators and pathological altruists.

I actually agree. If you follow it, it seems as if they had a brief sexual relationship, and once she punched him in the chest when he was drunk and disorderly. Obviously not the greatest behavior, but all things considered, his video was incredibly hysterical and ridiculous in my opinion, and most likely some sort of revenge/attention-seeking. Of course I wanted to believe it at first, being familiar with the reality of female on male violence, but we shouldn't ignore facts and instincts just to support a narrative, otherwise we're just like the bad guys.

All three of those men are not looked upon highly in this community. Especially not FDR, who did not end the Depression - the New Deal made it worse. Have you ever been exposed to the libertarian perspective on the Great Depression? And what did he win in WWII? Sure he defeated Hitler, but only by allying with China and USSR, two far worse regimes, and agreeing to sell off half of Europe to Stalin at the advice of Communist spies in the State Department.

Do you need high IQ to understand modern medicine? What percentage of humanity understand medicine really well? Are people doomed to ill health because they don't understand medicine?

Sorry confusing wasn't the best word. I just meant that when you hear him at rallies or debates, he talks one way, but in a more serious interview like this, he comes off as way more intelligent.

Already an active thread.

that's a pretty broad topic, why don't you share yours?

Just as a brief tangent, I wanted to respond to this line "I'm not sure if the fall of masculinity can be pinned on just one thing, but I do see some correlation here; that when the government is lawless, it's because of men failing to be what God (or if an atheist, merely just intended) intended them to be;" Government police/warfare state can bring out the worst in masculinity, in the same way that the welfare state brings the worst out of female nature. Male nature is to be competitive, to jockey for position, to accumulate resources, and so on. The natural limits on this are other men: if you set yourself against too many other men, or pick a fight with the wrong guy, you fail. At the same time, men need to cooperate to some degree to accumulate resources. The State takes away the natural limits and consequences to aggression, and allows men to accumulate resources not through cooperation, but through intimidation, coercion, and fraud.

These latest statements from Trump are really pulling at my 8 year hiatus from voting, though I vowed never to do so again. Almost sounds like it could have come straight out of the mouth of Ron Paul. I have to say I am sometimes confused by his obvious intelligence in interviews like this, compared with how he talks at his rallies or in the debates...but hey, I guess it's working for him.

I would love for Stef to do a rebuttal. She has 321k subscribers and this video already has 170k views.

Thread name repeats the word "About"

If you mean can you love another person without romantic/sexual feelings, then of course the answer is yes, as in love between family or friends. Sorry I don't understand this sentence, can you restate it more clearly? As in love of inanimate objects or concepts, like "I love jazz", "I love this coffee cup", "I love doughnuts", I suppose that's a bit different use of the word.

Cool, thanks, I didn't know that.

I didn't say you should be nice to them, but that doesn't mean you elbow them in the back of the head.